Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 30, 2010 1:30pm-2:00pm PST

2:30 pm
properly, amortizes properly and everyone gets in on the program on time. this needs to be geared down. we need to not release this r.f.p. until it's ready to go, and that means that local power and navigant need to assess the plans for how this is all going to lay out. thanks. supervisor mirkarimi: mr. brooks, do you have a letter from mr. fenn and local power? >> no, that's not what i sent to you guys. supervisor mirkarimi: but i want to know this. we spent thousands of dollars and i'm hearing a communication vicariously that now we have a disagreement here. so instead of anecdotal communication, then i want to know that this is actually substantial and real. >> so if i can speak to that, because i don't disagree with much of what mr. brooks has said because of the following -- if mr. fenn had his druthers, we would take another year or two and we would spend city rue sources to identify
2:31 pm
where we are going to locate specifically with the ceqa work the inn-city renewable sites. what we have talked about -- and that is his preference. but given that i said to him i don't believe that we have the -- i don't believe that i am going to recommend that we wait another two years to launch this program, we can do the in-city renewables identification at the same time that we are contracting with our local -- our provider, which will also allow us to have a revenue stream, which will help us with a credit rating, which will help us when we do issue h. bonds. we have a revenue stream which we can then finance. all the rest of it would be theoretical sites. and also, we want to bring in a partner that potentially would help pay for the identification of that in-city renewable rather than the city. i don't disagree with what mr. brooks is saying. that was the preference in the
2:32 pm
original plan is to identify all those sites and have them in the r.f.p. supervisor mirkarimi: so i just want to tie this up, because this has been a bone of contention in the past. we spent thousands of dollars on consultants. if they're going to dispatch anybody from the community to relay this message, they can at least put this in writer so it's memorialize. we should make sure that it's in the record that we understand exactly what it is that they want from us. just on that report alone, i mean, i would say that's crazy, politically untenable we would wait a year or two years. you'd invite two ballot initiatives by pg&e centered in just san francisco alone. that's absurd. >> since i have 20 seconds, can i clarify? just real quickly. supervisor mirkarimi: if you're speaking for mr. fenn -- >> actually, he probably would have preferred that i not even say any of this. i'm strictly speaking for the advocacy community.
2:33 pm
it might have been better if i just didn't say anything. but the conversation that he and i had, i wanted to reflect that, because i'm in agreement with what he was saying to me. not that he was lobbying me to do anything, and that is that -- first of all, we thought it would only take six months to identify the assets and lay them out. if it is going to take two years, which i don't -- that's not what i gathered from the conversation. then if we do some kind of a quick start-up, then the other set has to be one big r.f.o. that's locked in to the r.f.p. so that they're joined together and can't be separated. so if we need to do some kind of a two-year start-up, fine, but we have to make sure we're identifying the assets as we go and making sure that it all rolls out together legally so that we can't end up letting the r.f.o. die while the start-up, buying it on the market, just goes all by itself. and believe me, paul did not ask me to say this.
2:34 pm
i did it on my own because he and i consulted and it was my assessment, and it just wasn't accurate that characterize that he was fully in support and that's why i said it. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, mr. brooks. next speaker, please. anybody else? i called a few names, so if anybody wants to speak to this, this is the time to do it now. thank you. >> thank you very much. espinola jackson, bay view hunters point. i would like to say that i agree with everything that mr. brooks said. you know, for seven years we've been dealing with this, and there are projects, you know, that goes on and on and on. but i want to make sure that you take your time and get all of the truth and the understanding that you need to go forward. thank you very much. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm eric smith, executive
2:35 pm
director of green depot. i was intending to speak on agenda item number five. it's always frightening when i agree with mr. brooks, but i'll just echo the sentiments of ms. jackson. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. next speaker, please. >> aaron israel is here, a longtime member of the citizens advisory committee for power on issues of sfpuc. wanted to point out that the club thanks the good work that -- the staff of both the p.u.c. and lafco have been doing this year. focusing on the negotiations. finding the lessons learned from that process and being open. we don't have an opinion one way or the other about r.f.p. or splitting out the renewables work. we should point out that we are an advocate. we've long been involved in
2:36 pm
this process. mr. brooks does not speak for all the advocates. we're not all of one mind on this. we take great issue of him speaking for an alliance that we helped put together a number of years ago, which does not have an opinion in this matter today. so it's not possible for him to speak for an alliance or for members of that alliance, including sierra club. we hope that you get this r.f.p. out and that staff focuses on getting also the r.f.o. out as soon as possible. so we hope that this gets some good comments and responses from the marketplace, see what is it that we can get the market to do. this is an ambitious program, and we feel that the staff of both agencies here have been working well together and coming up with trying to keep this moving forward.
2:37 pm
we don't suggest delaying. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you . next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. joshua from brightline. i wanted to say two points generally. one is that the study and inventory that mr. brooks was speaking about, regardless of how long it takes or the process of getting there, i think it has to happen now, no matter what. whether it's six months or a year, two years, i feel that we have to know the inventory of available in-city generation, renewable generation, the energy efficiency work that we can do. i think we've got to know the finite scope of what it is. both to address the ceqa issue with enough lead time and because this is absolutely critical to what in my minds is one of the most important points of this program is the job-creation component. so without knowing where the opportunities for the jobs are, i think it's a lot more
2:38 pm
difficult to really create the excitement around the job creation, when right now it's still an on-the-market program. if we had done the inventory last year with the last r.f.p. and it took a year, we'd have it right now. so if we can get that ball rolling with respect to the r.f.o. -- is that the right acronym? -- to know the area of opportunities, that would be great. secondly is that i apologize. i jetted from the office without the r.f.p. but there's some language that says all bidders should be aware of the expectations to deliver community benefits with respect to the r.f.o. when the projects go out. can we also add that -- very small language added to say, also be aware of the city's local hiring requirements. so delivery of community benefits in compliance with the city's local hiring policies would be to just give a heads-up. it's good to educate. there are a lot of folks on the committee that by the ends of the year are going to mandate
2:39 pm
local hiring rather than relying on good-faith efforts. as much as you can educate about how to do business, the better. it's just a small edit thing. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, sir. any other comment? just come on up one after the other. thank you. >> my name is charles kalish. i'm just delighted to that we've reached this point. thank you very much. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gainesville pounds.] i'd like to try to synthesize some of the comments made and i echo some of the sentiments of the community who have also been long-term advocates and they've really helped us sculpt the process where we're at. considering the problems we've had over the last several years, but particularly in 2010, i don't believe that we have time to waste on this
2:40 pm
process whatsoever. i think we have been given a gift because of the great work of the people around the state, but many in this room, who saw to the fact that 16 was not going to kill our efforts here. and i don't think that we should take for granted that second chance whatsoever. with this r.f.p. process that we had experimented with for lack of a better phrase, lessons have been learned, and we should apply those lessons in the most thorough way possible. if we have our consultants, who may have both affirming and dissenting opinions or alternative views or minority reports that may exist, then at this point they have been well attached to this process professionally as part of lafco and p.u.c. i would insist that they put this in writing, and that if there's conversations that are going on between p.u.c. and
2:41 pm
lafco and local power and navigant, then i want to see those reports in writing. when i see comments or anecdotal comments that are being splayed over email that this consultant said this and this other consultant said that, and i am not able to actually source accurately where that comes from, then that sends a very confusing message and it gives the appearance, i think, of an unprofessional operation. so i don't want that to ensue anymore. i think that the comments are well taken by both staff and by public that with what we've learned, we obviously want to make sure that in 2010 we do everything we can, i think, to cement the ability of becoming officially a community choice 7x ago greator and that we are able to deliver to customers. that also means that we haven't lost sight, i think, of the endeavor of making sure that we
2:42 pm
are able to cite the capital intensity of building energy systems within san francisco, too, but we also realize by doing that that we will have inevitably or eventually a ceqa standard that we're going to have to abide by as well. there's no way we'd want it to bump up to a potential ballot measure in 2011 and really take a roll of the dice. i think to see all the good work in 2010 leading up to that point in 2011 subverted because there's another crack in trying to handicap us. so i hope with the timeline and chronology that we keep focus and structure on what we're intending to do and make good use of the rest of 2010. supervisor mirkarimi: supervisor campos. supervisor campos: thank you. i want to add a couple of points. i do welcome all the comments made in public comment and i
2:43 pm
agree that we need to make sure we do this right. that said, i also think that we need to do this project -- we need to move this project forward expeditiously, and i don't think we have to sacrifice the quality of this project to -- and move it forward at the same time. the other point that i will make is that to the extent that mr. fenn or any other consultant has concerns or issues about what lafco is doing or not doing, then he has an obligation to let us know, and he has an obligation to let us know directly, not through any other channels. and his failure to do that would actually be a breach of contract, as far as i'm concerned. so if there is a concern or anything that he thinks that lafco needs to know about what we're doing or not doing, then he is contractually obligated to make that clear to us directly, and i expect that
2:44 pm
from him if that's the case, thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, commissioner campos. colleagues, any other comments? ok, seeing none. it says an action item possible here. ms. miller, what would you like from us in this case? a blessing on the r.f.o. process? >> i think that is at the -- i don't have a resolution, because it's really not our r.f.p. we are in a monitoring role for the sfpuc. i think a motion to move forward with the sfpuc schedule is appropriate, and that includes the issuance of the r.f.p. supervisor mirkarimi: i don't have anything in oo writing here, so i'm reluctant to put a motion forward until i know what that is accurately and specifically. >> i don't think we need a motion. they have a timeline. they were given direction to issue the new r.f.p. we just wanted to bring it before you before it was issued
2:45 pm
for comment and review. supervisor mirkarimi: do we have a copy of it, by the way? >> it's in your packet. supervisor mirkarimi: this is the final final as it's going out? that's what i'm asking. >> no, he mentioned there are some additional changes that are going to be made as a result of a meeting that we had earlier this week. supervisor mirkarimi: also, with the changes that you'd like to incorporate, can you get us what a final final looks like? so we can see it? >> i believe so. i'll check with the city attorney if it needs to be fully public, however that needs to happen.
2:46 pm
but i have no problem with that. supervisor mirkarimi: it's going to become a public document anyway. >> i need to double-check whether it's something i email to commissioners or somehow we need to find a mechanism to make it be published. supervisor mirkarimi: i'm trying to true up the oral comments you made. we don't have it in writing. so i want to see how it looks in the final. so you have, i think you will probably have our blessing, but i think it's important to see what that final document looks like. ok. commissioner campos followed by commissioner -- supervisor campos: yes, in terms of future meetings, if there's a specific item we're voting on, we need to be more specific on the agendas about what we're doing, because the item simply says report on the status.
2:47 pm
if we were to move on social, a member of the public i don't think would know what it would be. if there's a specific agenda item that you would expect the lafco to take, i think we need more clarity. >> we knew this wasn't going to abfinal document. what's before you is not final. it was marty:ly for your review and comment today. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. commissioner mar, please. supervisor mar: thank you. i share my colleagues' anxiety. i am wanted to make sure we didn't lose the one suggestion about adding into the language in the r.f.p. about -- in the part about community -- delivery of community benefits
2:48 pm
to make sure there's explicit language about the local hiring policies. is that something that can be added in as well? >> i think that we will definitely add that in. that will definitely be included. supervisor mirkarimi: absent of a specific motion per se, i think you detect the warm and fuzzies we would like to be included in making sure that this process is finalized in a way that it represents, i think, lafco's interest. i think just in order to close that loop, whatever that final document is, as it is about to be made public, it's important that i think lafco commissioners are also recipients of that document. all right. we've already had public comment. there is no action taken on this item. so thank you to everybody on this. and mr. clerk, would you please
2:49 pm
read item number four. oh, and we will continue this item to the call of the chair. [gavel pounds.] >> item number four, executive officer's report. >> what you are being distributed right now is a flier on our upcoming conference and party on lessons learned on prop 16. and i wanted to make sure that you all and the public were aware of this event that happened on august 5. essentially we've gathered some of the people from around the state that were instrumental in assisting and defeating proposition 16, including kaufman campaigns, mr. jim pope, who's head of northern california power authority, relationships from the california municipal utilities
2:50 pm
association, a number of advocates and representatives of different nonprofit and for-profit organizations that were involved in the effort for a conference on the 5th, starting at 1:00 and ending at 5:00. and then for a celebration party after that. and with that, i'm going to introduce jason, who will get into the details for you. >> as ms. miller just indicated, we're joining up with many other groups that were working on the prop 16 campaign. we obviously were not doing stuff directly with the campaign, but we were doing educational stuff that is allowed under city and government policies and a lot of other city and counties were doing the same as we were. we're partnering up with them to have a discussion about what worked, how we all worked together on that program and that process. so the workshop will be having discussions about that. there will be a break-out session amongst the lawyers, to have a discussion about legal strategies that were used to get the ballot name changed and
2:51 pm
some of the things that were key in actually making sure that the proposition ended up failing or that the voters had well education about what the proposition was really about. so that is what the focus of the workshop is on is on that type of item, you know. we have people coming from all over northern california. i think even a couple of people from southern california are coming up to attend this event and be part of these workshops and have a discussion. and once that is done, there will actually be a celebration afterwards that people are also welcome to come to as well. this will be taking place at the merchants exchange building here in san francisco. the workshops start at 1:00, go till about 5:00. the party starts about 5:30. so we will be doing that. as of this morning we had 66 people signed up for the workshop, and we actually, i believe, have gotten a few more during the course of the day. we're looking at having somewhere between 70 and 80 people attending the workshop, which is our goal. for those who would like to
2:52 pm
attend, francesca is doing the registration list. anyone in the audience can speak to her and any of the commissioners that have yet to sign up, please let her know and she'll get owe the rsvp list and be prepared for you. that's all my report on that, unless you have any questions on it. and it's also free to anyone who wishes to attend. supervisor mirkarimi: i think that's probably the operative term, yes. i just want to say thank you, mr. fried, ms. miller, and to francesca, our great intern, and to the advocates out there, and to many who are not here that we expect to see at this event on august 5 who helped make the reason why we're having this event happen. i just want to say that lafco's been accused in both subject matter and style at being rather dry over the last few years. and the subject matter, a littles soteric and sometimes, you know, just hard, other than
2:53 pm
for those who have the nuanced interest in what we want to do. we have such a festive flier. we're talking about having a party together. so this is a real break-out period for lafco and public power and c.c.a. energy advocates. so i see this in itself culturally a real milestone, among other things. i think it will be great to celebrate, not just celebrate, because this isn't just a san francisco thing, although we are obviously the epicenter of everything in our own minds, but yet it's people from, i think, around the state that are going to be joining us. that's, i think, a wonderful opportunity for us to join hands. so i also want to underscore the comments that this is open to the public. they should register, because it's limited seating on the workshop side. i think the explanation of the workshop side is there are many counties and cities that are
2:54 pm
working towards the public power and community towards aggregation. we're really cousins to it, because they've been established for many decades and through alternative energy development. and so what the recent campaign had done is sparked something that roomly had not connected us in a way that now many throughout the state of california feel very connected. and i think they would like to see that, i think, developed and enriched. and this is just a way, i think, to help in that process. i don't know, col relation, if you have any questions or comments -- colleagues, if you have any questions or comments. if anybody would like to join us, please do so i also was informed that we did not know, but after later in that evening there wered guardian hero awards. to my right, we are sitting with one of the -- look at
2:55 pm
that. there he is right there. a picture of commissioner campos. he's autographing copies later, i understand. [laughter] so -- supervisor campos: thanks a lot. >> so if you want to make a night of meaningful celebration, you start with our effort and then go over there, and he'll have an autograph-signing edition. any other public comment on this item? supervisor mirkarimi: who in the audience is going to come to this? raise your hand. everybody including the pg&e lobbyist. good. [laughter] oh, come on. don't leave now. ms. miller. >> then the only other items i'd like to introduce caroline, who's going to update you on our business partnership efforts. >> hi, everyone. as part of our recent business outreach, we actually had a meeting recently with a staff member from the business
2:56 pm
council on climate change, which is basically a partnership within the bay area that are committed to reducing our climate change. one thing that the staff member brought up to us is that she is interested in having lafco as a partner, which would allow us basically to outreach to a lot of business leaders in san francisco, go to a lot of their networking events and be at the table and be able to present to them. so we wanted to bring this before all of you. one thing to know is that the co-sponsors of bc-3 include the environment, the u.n. global compact as well as the bay area council. there was a little bit of concern with the bay area council because there was a factor of opposition 16. but we think that this organization allows us to be at the table. and, again, the staff member assured us that this organization is more about sharing resources and making
2:57 pm
sure that people talk to each other and not advocating for one group. so we wanted to hear if any of you have any objections. and also, we wanted to add that it's free for us as a government. supervisor mirkarimi: i think it's great. i do recall debating the executive director, who is pro-prop 16. so if we're seeing a new leaf turned by all means. commissioner schmeltzer. >> sorry. i just want to agree with that. and i know there are a lot of organizations in the bay area that participate with bay area council and i think it's a good opportunity to reach a broader audience.
2:58 pm
>> if there's no objection, we're going to go through with the partnership. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: very good. scintillating there for a second. supervisor mirkarimi: i hope to see you all there at some point and we couldn't do that without you as well as core staff and members of the community. on the workshop side, there's
2:59 pm
some heavy hitters, i hear, that are coming up as well and what we may be able to do. is that correct, ms. miller? >> as i said, the heads of the california municipal utility association attending, as well as we have one representative speaking, talking about going ahead, efforts, consolidation efforts on issues that we might have in common with the investor on utilities. and we have jim pope, we have kaufman campaign, we have the pollsters, going to talk about -- for those of you who are interested in the politics and the statewide campaign. that person is going to be available to talk a little bit about their thoughts about how the campaign -- the reasons for wh